I lived as an expatriate in a Muslim country for seven years. I know that some Muslim men desire the burqua for their women and have successfully ‘indoctrinated’ women into believing that it is the duty of good Muslim females to cover up. These Muslim men will never acknowledge this but it essentially stems from a large dose of insecurity on their part.. These men don’t want any other men looking at their wives, etc. But it is alright for them to play the field and acquire 4 wives.

Sometimes it is through regulations that such discriminatory practices can be abandoned, especially if they are a hindrance to women’s progress and equality status. The burqua is a symbol of oppression, a simple of subservience, a symbol of ignorance and certainly a symbol of male supremacy. The burquaed women will never agree with the above statement as the level of ‘burqua-indoctrination’ is deeply entrenched. This is a tragedy!!

Cheers to France. They have the guts to pass regulations in the best interest of the nation and the long-term interest of the burquaed community as French citizens. A burquaed community in Australia means creating an underclass community, a divided community. It will come back to bite us all. Better to discard the burqua and see the world for what it is; evil is not out there, but within us. Seek not to hide behind the burqua for it doesn’t free the Satan within one!! Down with the burqua!!

While I generally agree with Pip Hinman, she does rather overstate her case. It is simply not racist to want to see women's faces and to oppose any form of compulsory face covering. Others have argued this well enough, though the portrayal, by one correspondent, of the minority who wear the veil, as extremist Muslims, is extremely unhelpful and plainly wrong.

If we were really serious we would certainly not add to the woes of any woman who is made to wear a veil, and we would legislate instead to fine all men whose wives wear it, unless they also wear it themselves.

In Australia we are all equal before the law. The idea that a man's face might not be an occasion of immodesty or sexual stimulation is false - and panders to the ridiculous idea that women, and some men, are not sexually attracted to men's faces.

Women who claim to wear veils for modesty are in effect proclaiming that the women in my life are somehow less modest because they don’t cover their heads. Well they clearly don’t know my mum . . . and all the others, and this kind of claim to the modesty high ground is offensive and about as unhinged as most of the moral precepts that came from the bronze age.

But even more importantly our collective liberty is hardly advanced by the suppression of minorities. There simply is no case that this would protect anyone. I agree that it is, instead, a clear case of scapegoating a vulnerable group to focus our discomfort with a world that is less and less in our control. Sad really . . . It never was in our control!

Pokies, opportunistic bank fees, a PBS listing for Viagra, home evictions, tendering for the right to mine our minerals . . . I have a very long list that deserves the attention of our legislatures before veils even rate a mention!

Interesting, there was an article the other day about a woman who was arrested for wearing a burqa whilst driving. It was said, that her vision was too restricted for safety.

This occurred in a country under sharia law. The article went on to say, that while women in that country are not banned from driving, they are banned from getting a driving license.

JanF,

Don't jump to conclusions to quickly. In certain circumstances I think the burqua should be banned. However wearing the burqua is a lot less harmful than the pressure put on young girls to flaunt what they have or have not got. Many more suicides occur due to this sort of promotion by the porn and advertising industry in the West than deaths by Islamic woman with burqua's hiding bombs.

Pip's article reflects a real concern for the welfare of women and, as she says,it is so obvious that this issue is being driven by people with an agenda other than women's welfare.

I must also admit that I am torn on this issue. Women should have the right to chose what they want to wear ( within reason of course), and I don't have a problem with the Indian Sari or any other ethnic dress simply because they don't cover the face. Why can't these garments be adapted so that the face at least could be seen? Afterall the claim is that they don't want their women to tempt other men. But if the entire body is covered - what's the problem? Covering the entire face and body does present all sorts of problems in our "free society."
If we were to visit their countries they would expect us to comply with their rules, what's the problem with our insisting on the same courtesy? As I said - this is all a bit of a conundrum to me.